Magnitude of the frustration effect as a function of confinement and detention in the frustrating situation.

McKinnon, John R.; Amsel, Abram

doi:10.1037/h0046443

Cited by 34 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…produces an elevation of R-trial speed rather than a decline in 412 F-trial speed. This result was not revealed in the analogous runway studies with rats by Arosel & Roussel (1952) andMacKinnon &Arosel (1964), since in those studies midbox confinement time was varied on Ftrials only. Our interpretation of the finding is that frustration due to nonreward is probably not completely dissipated after 40 sec.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Temporal persistence of frustration effects in monkeys and rats

Davenport¹,

Flaherty²,

Dyrud³

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rhesus, stumptail, and squirrel monkeys and rats were tested in various retractable-lever analogues of the double runway commonly used to study the Amsel frustration effect in rats. Variation of the midtrial interval (MIl) In a previous report (Davenport & Thompson, 1965) the Amsel frustration effect (FE) was demonstrated in stumptail monkeys in a dual-retractable-lever analogue of the double runway in which S completed a fixed number of responses on the left lever followed by an equal number of responses on the right lever. The first half of each trial ended with either reward (R trial) or nonreward (F trial), and the left and right halves of a trial were separated by a midtrial interval (MTI) during which both levers were retracted . The FE, defined as faster right-hand responding on F than on R trials, appeared consistently in all Ss whenever the MTI was 5 sec.In this report we present data from subsequent research bearing on the temporal persistence of frustration as revealed by experimental manipulation of the MTI. In the course of this work further generality of the FE, to other species and other automated 2-lever procedures, was demonstrated. MetllodSs were two rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), two stumptail monkeys (Macaca speciosa), two squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciurea), and two albino rats. All were adults having previous experience in leverpressing situations involving intermittent reinforcement.Three Lehigh Valley 1317 monkey test chambers and a Lehigh 1316 rat chamber were used. Each chamber was equipped as in the previous study (Davenport & Thompson, 1965), with 97-mg sucrose pellets for the macaques, 75-mg Ciba banana pellets for the squirrel monkeys, and 45-mg Noyes rat pellets for the rats. The basic trial procedure was the same as in the previous study except for the MTI and reinforcement schedule manipulations and the use of a longer intertrial interval averaging 2 min.The Ss received 100 sessions involving a total of 2,080 trials. In the first 84 sessions, the MTI was held constant at 5 sec. while the Ss were given baseline Psychon. Sci., 1966, Vol. 6 (9) training and frustration test sessions on three different 2-lever schedules, designated DT-FR1LFR1R (single response on each lever), DT-FR1 L DRL3 R (single response on the left lever, reward for a single right-lever response having a latency of 3 sec. or longer), and DT-FR1LDRL6R (right-lever latency requirement increased to 6 sec.).The MTI was manipulated in a series of four 4-day cycles in sessions 85-100 with the last of these three schedules continued. In each cycle the MTI was varied within Ss among the values of 5, 10, 20, and 40 sec. in counterbalanced orders across Ss, with values for a given S changing from day to day. In each session there were five F trials randomly interspersed among five R trials, and the assigned MTI value for a given session was the same for both types of trial. ResultsAt least one member of each species pair, and usually both members, showed consistent FE's at MTI = 5 sec. under each of the three schedule...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Temporal persistence of frustration effects in monkeys and rats

Davenport¹,

Flaherty²,

Dyrud³

1966

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In experiments where these procedures have been used to demonstrate the frustration effect this accelerative phase of responding is always immediately preceded by either reward or nonreward. Moreover, this contiguous relationship seems to be essential: a long timeout or detention time separating nonreward from the period when responding occurs reduces or abolishes the effect (MacKinnon & Amsel, 1964;Davenport, Flaherty, & Dyrud, 1966;. Further, in situations where there is no goal-gradient, in the present sense, there is no frustration effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal effects of reinforcement: A negative “frustration” effect

Staddon

1970

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinforcement omission in situations that show positive goal-gradients elevates subsequent responding (positive "frustration" effect). In this experiment, in a situation showing a negative goal-gradient, reinforcement omission depressed subsequent responding (negative "frustration" effect). A simple hypothesis in terms of discriminative after-effects of reinforcement accounts for both effects. The same interpretation is adequate to describe frustration effects in runways and avoids problems faced by frustration theory. Some further tests of the hypothesis are proposed.

show abstract

“…A fourth point is the tendency for the effect to be higher at short detention times (TO durations) than long (Exp. 2 here; MacKinnon and Amsel, 1964;Davenport, Flaherty, and Dyrud, 1966). A final point is the emergence of an omission effect with or without initial training under a continuous condition (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

REINFORCEMENT OMISSION ON FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES¹

Staddon

Innis

1969

J Exper Analysis Behavior

118

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments with pigeons and rats showed that: (1) When a brief blackout was presented in lieu of reinforcement at the end of 25% of intervals on a fixed-interval 2-min schedule, response rate was reliably and persistently higher during the following 2-min intervals (omission effect). This effect was largely due to a decrease in time to first response after reinforcement omission. (2) When blackout duration was varied, within sessions, over the range 2 to 32 sec, time to first response was inversely related to the duration of the preceding blackout, for pigeons, and for rats during the first few sessions after the transition from FI 2-min to FT 2-min with reinforcement omission. Post-blackout pause was independent of blackout duration for rats at asymptote. These results were interpreted in terms of differential depressive effects of reinforcement and blackout on subsequent responding.

show abstract

Magnitude of the frustration effect as a function of confinement and detention in the frustrating situation.

Cited by 34 publications

References 4 publications

Temporal persistence of frustration effects in monkeys and rats

Temporal persistence of frustration effects in monkeys and rats

Temporal effects of reinforcement: A negative “frustration” effect

REINFORCEMENT OMISSION ON FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Magnitude of the frustration effect as a function of confinement and detention in the frustrating situation.

Cited by 34 publications

References 4 publications

Temporal persistence of frustration effects in monkeys and rats

Temporal persistence of frustration effects in monkeys and rats

Temporal effects of reinforcement: A negative “frustration” effect

REINFORCEMENT OMISSION ON FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

REINFORCEMENT OMISSION ON FIXED‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES¹